Anti-science madness

airmano wrote: Ahmad: I tend to disagree with you if it implies Islam and science. IMHO, there is no contradiction between between the two. 1) The Quran says we are made out of clay, water or sand. This is already a contradiction in itself and even more displaced in the light of modern knowledge.

Can you be more specific what do you think we are made of other than the three you mentioned?

airmano wrote: 2) The historical large area (or even worldwide) flooding is impossible, thus Noah - as described in the Quran/Bible never existed. (Not to talk about genetic evidence) Seriously can you believe a neolithic bloke with a stone axe would be able to build such a ship ?

You just can't mix your biblical knowledge to assume the same from Quran. Can you provide specific reference from Quran.

airmano wrote: 3) The way the human embryonic development is described [in the Quran] is wrong.

and the right way is............?

airmano wrote: 4) Interpreting the "Big Bang" into the Quran takes more phantasy than even Mohamed ever had.

Interpretations of Big Bang can be wrong, I admit. But what is this to do with Quran?

airmano wrote: 5) How was this again ? Everything comes in pairs ? Well...

Exceptions in nature are always there, however majority of naturally observable living beings are what we know, in pairs. Where is the disagreement?

Tim the plumber wrote: Does water of a river mix with the ocean water?Do salt and fresh waters mix?

Should anyone start teaching chemistry 101 here?

Edited by AhmadJoyia - 25 August 2016 at 2:54am

AhmadJoyia wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Does water of a river mix with the ocean water?Do salt and fresh waters mix? Should anyone start teaching chemistry 101 here?

Which is correct? The Koran or the real world?

airmano wrote: Airmano: 1) The Quran says we are made out of clay, water or sand. This is already a contradiction in itself and even more displaced in the light of modern knowledge. Ahmad Can you be more specific what do you think we are made of other than the three you mentioned? A) clay ≠ water ≠ sand => Internal contradiction

Please show this error in reference to the verse in Quran or its your own reading?

airmano wrote: B) The body does not consist of any of those => second error

What if I say clay = mixture of naturally occurring elements and if I say everything (living or non living) in this world is made of clay, am I wrong? If yes, then you might be violating conservation of mass principle. Think about it in this sense.

airmano wrote: C) The body does indeed contain water but the chemically driving element is Carbon => If I was Gods teacher, here I would at least subtract some sloppiness point, for not mentioning this fact.

What do you mean �chemically driving�? Tell us which one of the two, Water or the Carbon, is more abundantly available in human body?

airmano wrote: D) The body does not even contain clay nor sand and not even their constituent elements (Silicon, Aluminium). They are - if at all- only present in trace forms and even potentially harmful => Another minus point to the Quran. This doesn't look good, isn't it ?

Clay is not just silicon, aluminium but a mixture of lot more naturally occurring elements. Why limit yourself with sand only?
---------------------------------------------------------

Airmano wrote: Airmano: The historical large area (or even worldwide) flooding is impossible, thus Noah - as described in the Quran/Bible never existed. (Not to talk about genetic evidence) Seriously can you believe a neolithic bloke with a stone axe would be able to build such a ship ? Ahmad: You just can't mix your biblical knowledge to assume the same from Quran. Can you provide specific reference from Quran. Airmano: Sure can I: 11:40:[So it was], until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and [include] whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few. A) Each creature ? Any idea of the size of the ship ? The amount of food it took ? The time it took to collect them all (in America the Polynesian islands, Galapagos and so on) with stone age tools ? Do a back of the envelope calculation and then quickly forget it.

Ah! Here is your problem because of your biblical background. You are fixated with the word that is in brackets and which is actually not there in actual Arabic. Here is another translation
Yusuf Ali: �At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few believed with him.�
As per this verse, he was told to get the pair of each on the boat. That is it, simple and straight. Unlike Bible, the verse doesn�t imply that he should go and gather all the creatures of the world and load them in pair onto the boat.

airmano wrote: B) Taking each creature makes only sense if the whole of the world is flooded. Even the altiplano in Peru at 4000m height ? Where shold all the water come from ?

Not necessarily! This would make sense if you realize purely from human perspective, without a boat even a square kilometer flooded area for an unspecified period of time is just too much to survive.

airmano wrote: C) Don't you think that killing essentially all of mankind and leaving only a handful would not leave any genetic traces ? - Not to talk about [consequences of] the incest God would have provoked ?

A large scale flooding doesn�t necessarily mean �whole world�. Which part of the verse says this??

airmano wrote: D) 11:44: "And the water subsided, and the matter was accomplished, and the ship came to rest on the [mountain of] Judiyy. And it was said, "Away with the wrongdoing people." To strand on a mountain I would assume at least 800 to 1000m above sea level (otherwise it's a hill) => Refer to B) and the question about the water.

Again the problem of biblical perception, I guess. The flooding was due to heavy down pour. This is possible because it may cause the rivers to swell over its banks onto the land. This happens all the time during monsoon season in this part of the world. If you ever happen to visit places like Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, during this time, you won�t find dry land tens of hundreds of kilometers, left and right, except water. Closer to the sea, the problem becomes even bigger where the distinction between the river and the sea vanishes very quickly. So, yes, this much water is possible.

-----------------------------------------------------

Airmano wrote: Airmano: 3) The way the human embryonic development is described [in the Quran] is wrong. Ahmad: and the right way is............? 23:14 "Sahih International: Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators" Flesh (muscles) and bones co-develop. Look at any scientific web site on embryology. Wiki may be a starting point. Sorry Quran ! Besides being wrong it is so wishy-washy that it is useless anyway. Anybody who witnessed a natural abortion would talk in terms of of a "lump of flesh". Trivialities !

I think you have not provided any evidence to support your hypothesis that Quran is wrong. Co-development implies start of both bone and flesh structure together which is not correct especially if it has to start with single cell. Isn�t it?

------------------------------------------------------

Airmano: ) Interpreting the "Big Bang" into the Quran takes more phantasy than even Mohamed ever had. Ahmad: Interpretations of Big Bang can be wrong, I admit. Airmano: Thanks, I appreciate this remark ! Ahmad: But what is this to do with Quran? That's exactly the question I ask myself ! Airmano: Do me the favour and google " Big Bang and Quran". May be you can explain me why your zealous brothers in faith tell such nonsense ?

What nonsense? What is the objection? It�s you who has to define your concern.
-------------------------------------------------------

Airmano: 5) How was this again ? Everything comes in pairs ? Well... Ahmad: Exceptions in nature are always there, however majority of naturally observable living beings are what we know, in pairs. Where is the disagreement? Airmano: Everything ≠ some things, always ≠ sometimes. QED. What worth would the law of gravitation be if apples flew unexplainedly upwards from time to time ?

Ah! Don�t we know that even these laws have exceptions depending upon which theory we take to understand them? Should we go back to Quantum Mechanics?? Or would you like to read more on things like gravitational singularity or for that matter about Schwarzschild radius?